3 min read
Jul 30, 2026
By: James W. Sandy
In a decision with potential far-reaching consequences, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed dismissal of a putative class action related to unwanted text messages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), finding that text messages do not equal calls and are therefore not covered by section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA.
The Seventh Circuit’s decision ultimately conflicts with decisions from other circuit courts and could result in the US Supreme Court deciding the issue once and for all.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision and found that a text message is not a telephone call for purposes of § 227(c)(5) of the TCPA.
That section provides for a private right of action for any person “who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection[.]”
As the court noted, it is undisputed that a “telephone call” could have included text messages when the TCPA was enacted in 1991; the first text message was not sent until the next year. So the court looked into what “telephone call” meant back in 1991.
Because the TCPA does not define the term, the court looked to contemporaneous dictionary definitions. As the court noted, in 1991, “a telephone was an instrument for reproducing sounds at a distance[.]” Because text messages do not reproduce sounds, they did not meet the definition of a telephone call back in 1991.
The court also concluded that the provisions surrounding § 227(c)(5) provided further support for this plain reading of the term telephone call. For example, §§ 227(c)(3) and (4) relate to creating a national database for individuals to object to receiving “telephone solicitations,” a term specifically defined to include more than telephone calls.
The court found it telling that Congress used two different terms within the same statutory scheme and rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that those different terms should not be given different meanings.
The plaintiffs, however, rejected that conclusion and raised a number of policy-related arguments that the court rejected outright:
The Seventh Circuit’s ruling is binding on Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, and means TCPA class actions under § 227(c)(5) for unwanted marketing text messages in those states are effectively dead. But this decision is only binding in the Seventh Circuit, meaning that other courts could rule differently on the issue. Furthermore, the FCC retains the ability to regulate unwanted text messages under the TCPA.
James W. Sandy
Partner
Email
216-247-8509
Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No
Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation
Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies
In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report
Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology
In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup
Press Release
Jul 27, 2026
James Sandy Selected to Crain’s Cleveland Business 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law
James Sandy Selected to Crain’s Cleveland Business 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law
Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)
Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities
Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles
In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”
Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota
Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No
Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation
Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies
In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report
Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology
In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup
Press Release
Jul 27, 2026
James Sandy Selected to Crain’s Cleveland Business 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law
James Sandy Selected to Crain’s Cleveland Business 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law
Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)
Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities
Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles
In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”
Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota
Quick Links
Stay In The Know
Subscribe
Connect With Us
© 2026 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Back to top
To save the professional biographies, service areas, and insights you view and to see them in My Hinshaw, allow the relevant cookies in your preferences. You can change this anytime in cookie settings.